Nils Christie: Theory on Causes of Crime

Nils Christie Theory on Ca handlings of CrimeIt is postulated that the phenomenon offence does non inhabit, although we place consume its negative consequences of it upon society by minutes. umpteen definitions of annoyance give been unquestionable, the most simplistic definition of a felonious act being acts that break legislation outlined in natural constabulary however this differs from that of a normative perspective criminal offenses atomic number 18 acts which nooky displease against a set of norms similar to a moral code. When trying to agnize the fancy of crime it is paramount to understand what acts are and why indisputable acts are criminalised but not all. A Utilitarian standpoint would be that laws should be focussed towards achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, a principle k instantaneouslyn as the greatest happiness principle a theory developed by Philippa Foot (1978). Law under capitalism would be geared to protect pr operty rights and affirm the friendly order. With this philosophical theory in mind, one advise contend that acts are crimes for the tenability they live negative effects on society. I entrust use a collection of practice sessions to give explanations to comments from Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie focussing on its implications for explaining crime. In addition to this I will briefly outline what criminology is and its connection with the creation of crime.Crime as a plan is relatively recent. Crime was not known by its name in the 16th and 17th centuries, the record book was current but it lacked precise meaning, (Elton 19775). However from having no sense of crime, we now have a global sense of the subject. Since the emergence of crime as a opinion it has constantly been a highly contested barrier which has been debated inside studies ever since, with criminologists, sociologists and philosophers all creating new theories for it. As mentioned crime does not con stitute, law constructs crime for us. In a sense we actually produce crime by producing law we then in turn energise crime, without legislation there would be no sense of criminality. A domain with no criminal system would mean no courts, prisons or criminals. It authoritative to remember that criminal law is not the only form of law as there is also civil law. Criminal law can be is punitive where as civil law is based on restitution.If crime does not exist some efficiency question what criminology is. My individualized favourite and one of the most detailight-emitting diode explanation is that of D. Garland I take criminology to be a specific genre of discourse and research about crime a genre that has developed in the ripe period and that can be distinguished from other ways of talk of the town and thinking about criminal conduct. Thus, for example, criminologys claim to be an empirically grounded, scientific undertaking sets it apart from moral and statutory discourses , turn its focus upon crime distinguishableiates it from other social scientific genres, such as the sociology of deviance and control, whose objects of study are broader and not particularized by the criminal law. Since the middle historic period of the twentieth century, criminology has also been increasingly marked off from other discourses by the trappings of a distinctive identity, with its own journals, professional associations, professorships, and institutes, (Of Crime and Criminals 2002, p8). This abduce affirms what I mentioned earlier regarding the emergence of crime as a plan over the last couple of centuries or so, especially how we have developed new ways to deal with behaviour deemed criminal. He also highlighted the studies whimsical outlook and strong holds on the studies development of theories concerning criminal deviance.I will now concentrate on the main theme of my essay exploitation examples to explain the comments of criminologist Nils Christie asse ssing their implications for explaining crime. The University of Oslo criminologist disliked the name crime, I dont like the term crime-its such a big, fat, imprecise word, there are only unwished acts. How we perceive them depends on our relationship with those who carry them out. here Christie is very full of life of the term describing it is as in accurate and stating that there is no such object it is merely acts. Nils Christie also believes how we observe these acts depends on our association with those who have carried the out the act.Furthermore Christie supports D. Garlands view crime is not a literal idea, hence it does not exist. Only acts exist, acts often given different meanings within various social frame constitutes. Acts and the meanings given to them are our data. Our challenge is to follow the fatality of acts through the universe of meanings. Particularly, what are the social conditions that encourage or obstruct giving the acts the meaning of being crime? (Christie, 2004 3). Here he has taken his previous idea I stated earlier acts do not exist, then added some other aspect to it by suggesting the meanings given to them can upkeep us as social scientists in our research into the phenomenon. He is hinting that the social frameworks within society lead people to commit crime, the reasons for committing a crime can be economical, personal or politically motivated.Christie was mainly concerned with crime control and prison populations. He believed there was an unlimited preparation of crime that crime as a concept would never kick the bucket extinct in a sense as there would always be motives for individuals to be deviant such as political or financial rewards, this new situation, with an unlimited reservoir of acts which can be defined as crimes, also constrains unlimited possibilities for warfare as against all sorts of unsought acts, (Crime control as industry towards gulags, western style, Nils Christie). This statement by C hristie can be affirmed by examining unwanted acts those made by the furnish Irish republican Army. There are a multitude of factors which create conditions for and exasperate what has come to be interpreted as crime. These are through a number of social frameworks such as class and nationality. These are all social constructs and are integral parts of capitalism and overriding capitalist ideology.The Norwegians analysis can be applied to many situations a political example of this is conflict between the Provision Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the British Government. The issue first started in the 1920s during the Irish war of independence, when the Republican Army launched guerrilla warfare over British rule in Ireland. There was little conflict between the ii sides until 30 January 1972 now known as bloody Sun daytime. On the day mentioned British soldiers shot twenty-seven civil rights protestors, killing thirteen while patrolling, as a Northern Ireland Civil Rights Associa tion march took place. This created ruction as the civilians whom were shot were Catholics, restarting the tension between Northern Ireland and British Government. Although the provisional Irish Republican Armys movement against the partition of Ireland in fact started deuce years previous to the tragic day the intensity and media coverage of the deaths led to member levels of the group rapidly escalating. To refer back to Christies ideology this example can be described as under the umbrella of nationality and unearthly social frame works. British Government viewed the IRA as terrorists afterwards several planned attacks within Britain including a Bank robbery on a bank in Belfast in 2004 where they escaped with 26.5 million.The tentative Irish Republicans felt they were protecting their nation from British involvement in addition to gaining revenge for oppression they faced during British occupancy of Ireland. This was a crime born of social circumstances, as crime does not ex ist only acts they thought of their acts as justifiable. If this is the case then were their acts unlawful? Here is a great example of how implications on explaining crime due to different ideology and theories can create a dilemma. Despite the oppression and hardships the conditional Irish Republican Army felt they received due to the British Government, I feel it is morally wrong to take the life of another individual so their attacks on Birmingham and various other places in Britain was lawfully unjust.Christie argues throughout his work that crime is a fluid and shallow notion stating that acts may perhaps be constructed as criminal and unlimited thus making crime an endless concept. This links back to the argument that the concept of crime is socially constructed, we create crime. Crime could not continue to exist without legislation we tell the legal system what is right and what is wrong, legal, illegal, just and unjust. To and this idea, in a sense we as a society chan ge magnitude and decrease crime rates, by making an act unlawful we are ever-increasing the chances of someone then committing a crime.Capitalism has been another major inducing for people committing crimes or as described by Christie unwanted acts, (A fit amount of Crime, P7). Firstly capitalism promotes a false material initiation in which people feel they must have the finest mobile phones, televisions, cars and housing. This is hypocritical as in actual fact it develops a more unsymmetrical society in terms of distribution of power, wealth and resources with a decline chance of social mobility. As a result of this some individuals caught up in the longing for material goods due to the scarcity they feel they may begin stealing as a means to allow them to give in objects they desire. However Nils Christie believed for all acts including those seen as unwanted, there are dozens of executable alternatives to their understanding bad, mad, evil, misplaced honour, youth bravad o, political heroism or crime, (A fitted amount of money of Crime, P7). Christie demonstrates that an act deemed illegal may be committed due to a variety of reasons. The example where someone feels they have no alternative than to thieve can come under the social frame work of inequality economically disadvantaged. It would be wrong to say this comment from the criminologist has had a vaster enough affect on how crime is explained however perhaps if a few more social scientists were to entertain this idea there might be a small shift in the way we define the concept. If this were to happen we may see a change in how the legal system deals with acts similar to that capitalism discussed above. The economic system produces inequality which leads to crime. This could have a knock on affect with capitalism in a capitalist society most laws exist to protect the status quo therefore crimes which do not go against capitalism are normally a by product of it e.g. power crime from the hier archy which it creates.Labelling theory can be brought into the argument of there not being a concept of crime, only acts. The theory states deviance is not a quality of the act because but the result of traits associated with committing deviance.ReferencesPhilippa Foot, The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double military issue in Virtues and Vices (Oxford Basil Blackwell, 1978)(Elton 19775). Look up, references on mole..Crime control as industry towards gulags, western style, Nils Christie page 23. Page 3.A Suitable Amount of Crime